Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

...the least of the Indiana Jones films, even with Crystal Skull in the mix? Don't get me wrong as I think all four movies are awesome in their own way, even Last Crusade which I always enjoy a lot, and it wasn't even always my least favorite, but it just seems to hold up the least well of the films for me. I find it's far too lighthearted and comical, which in turn makes it not have the same feeling of danger and intensity Raiders and Temple Of Doom both had in big numbers, and Indy himself doesn't feel quite as edgy or cutthroat as he was in the previous two movies. The villains I think were the least interesting of the series, I always disliked how it rendered Sallah and Brody into useless comic relief and the opening sequence with Indy's backstory is so over the top to me. I also felt it was a mistake to go back to the Nazis again, unlike others I always liked how Temple Of Doom had totally different enemies for Indy to be up against, and I liked this about Crystal Skull as well. The Nazis being back was pretty boring to me.

I still think it's a great movie, don't get me wrong. Indy's father is an awesome character and the interplay the two have is priceless, and I dig the tank and boat scenes as well as the trials Indy faces near the end, but it's the one of the series I feel the least compelled to rewatch. I used to be in the majority of fans who felt Crystal Skull was the weakest, but I grew to enjoy it much more with repeat views and while far from flawless, I liked that it had a different mythology and different enemies for Indy to be involved with and I liked the setpieces and action of it more than Last Crusade. I liked that it tried something different and didn't do another Nazi storyline.

For the record, I rate both Raiders and TOD a 10/10 each and both of the latter two films score an 8/10 from me. I think they're all top-notch films but it seems uncommon for people to regard Last Crusade as a weaker film than the others. Which isn't to knock it of course, but I just find the others to be a little more entertaining.

 

Yes. My biggest problem with Crusade is it felt less like an Indiana Jones adventure and more like Steven Spielberg's attempt at making the James Bond film he had always wanted, complete with goofy visual gags. Specifically the chase sequences with Nazi Messerschmitt sheering it's wings and hurtling down the tunnel in flames on to have Indy and Henry do a double take with the pilot... just silly, and far worse than any visual gag in Crystal Skull (including nuking the fridge and the monkeys).

Raiders and Temple seemed to have more of George's fingerprints on them. Lucas envisioned the character as a more hard edged two-fisted hero from the Saturday morning serials he had watched as a kid. Spielberg on the other hand saw him as a more worldly, sophisticated hero who would bed a new lady in each film... hmmmmm very Bond like. Which shouldn't be that surprising as Spielberg had been lobbying Cubby Broccoli for a Bond directing gig. Crusade was clearly more of Steven's baby, and that's fine, but Indy certainly had a much different vibe than he did in the previous two films.

Still enjoy the heck out of the film, and the tank chase is one of the finest action scenes in the whole series, but on the whole I just think it borrows too heavily from Bond, another franchise I have a deep passion for.


Yancy

 

no

 

My appreciation for The Last Crusade stem from Sean Connery's role, more than anything else. Still, it's my second favourite from the series.

 

I agree with all of that. I preferred the more edgy style of the first two movies and I always kinda wanted to see the original haunted castle idea that Lucas had in mind for it rather than using the Nazis again and retreading so much of Raiders' plot. I still like the film a lot but I can't help but wonder how it would'v been had they used that concept.

 

Yeah, same here. What could have been a pretty naff idea actually made the film.

 

Although "LAST CRUSADE" is my least favorite Indiana Jones film, I still love all four films.

 

Love the Last Crusade. Connery and Ford together....just loved the dynamic. It's my second favorite of the series behind Raiders.

 

Loved Crusade. Sure, it's more comedic in tone, but Temple was pretty dark in tone and the lightheartedness was a nice change of pace.

Although the haunted castle idea has always intrigued me. Perhaps the next film could use this idea and maybe have a villian who isn't a Nazi or a Communist and isn't too dark and creepy.

 

Oh, one other point; what Spielberg and Jeffery Boam did to poor Marcus Brody was borderline criminal. Changed him from a competent former field archaeologist and museum curator into an insufferable, doddering, fool. Ugh!

Yancy

 

There's a difference between being a field archaeologist and doing what Indy's done since he was a kid. Archaeology is nothing like what Indy's done. So having him being a fish out of water when it came to Nazis makes perfect sense. As to getting lost in his own museum, I'm going to assume it was when the thing was completed and the first time he walked all the way through it.

 

I can't really choose between Raiders, Doom and The Last Crusade. All have their great bits, and the scenes with Ford and Connery in are just brilliant.

 

Last Crusade is my personal favorite. Sean Connery was able to push it over Raiders for me - he was hilarious!

 

Love Last Crusade. It's my 2nd favorite Indy film behind Raiders.

By the way, if you want to buy the grail knight's sword from the movie you can find it at Antiquities at the Forum Shops (Caesars Palace) in Las Vegas. Saw it there last week and on another trip before that. Don't remember the price, but it's there. I like movie memorabilia.

*Looked up the price online and it's $12,995.00.*

 

Last Crusade is to me the end-all be-all of IJ movies. Soooo, no.

Temple of Doom though, now that's a stinker in my opinion.

 

I maintain my defense for the film as an exceptional addition the Indiana Jones series.

 

'The Last Crusade' always battles with 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark' for me as the best Indy film. When I watch one, it rockets to the top. I watch the other, and THAT overtakes it.

So different, but so similar too, and I think that's why they are both brilliant because it's the same source but totally different adventures and style of film.

'The Last Crusade' caters to everything aimed at for the family orientated, action-adventure buddy movie with fantastic cast, exceptional stunt work, a rousing score and wonderful emotional sentiment.

I feel the Nazis are the perfect villains here and used to great effect, and it really does span everything from action and adventure on land, on vehicles, underground, on sea, in the air and in the desert; what more do you want?!

Just great fun I think over-all, and I love how Indy wears a tie during most of the film even when he's trying to save mankind, he still looks smart.

 

Without wanting to trash either Last Crusade or ROTJ at all, I think it's worth mentioning that they're both almost remakes of the first films of their trilogies, but taken to another level - which explains why many find them to be their favourites, while others (such as myself) prefer the first installments for the same reason.

Much as I adore the Throne Room / Emperor scenes of ROTJ, the rough, edgy style of SW/ANH will always make it my favourite. Even Tarkin sometimes seems more like the Ultimate Villain than Palps himself - no superpowers, no black cloak, no cackling, just pure evil conveyed with a few smirks and hideous actions.

Similarly, the more direct serial homage of Raiders elevates it past Last Crusade for me - plus, Indy's more of a grave robber, and the opponents are just that much nastier.

By the third film of any successful series, there's a certain filtering that occurs in order to cater to what the studios believe the audiences want, and whatever edge was there tends to be blunted or eliminated. If it wasn't for the sheer brilliance of Sean Connery as Dr Henry Jones, I think Last Crusade would be judged far more harshly these days, much as ROTJ cops it for the Ewoks & a few derivative performances.

 

Possibly....possibly. I see your point.

They take a formula which worked, and re-think it and make it bigger to appeal to more audiences and tick the check list of what to expect from films of that genre, ie: the dastardly villains, the big set pieces, the sidekick etc.

The riskier, toned down efforts of films such as 'ROTLA' and 'ANH' propel it beyond just a film and it seems far more real and edgier by not trying to be a formulaic film.

 

LC is my fave Indy film though I will say Sean is the reason why.

 

And also, somewhat perversely, by taking decades-old film formulae and reinventing/remaking them in a modern context, just as Jaws did (and The Godfather, to a certain extent). Despite the nostalgia, GL, Spielberg et al are the first to admit that the old serial films like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers weren't actually very good to begin with (I've tried, desperately, to watch the old 1940s Batman serials and they're still just dull).

Part of their motivation for making films like Star Wars and Raiders was to take these fun old themes that they enjoyed as kids and make good films from them, rather than cheap serials or Corman-style B movies. They had the skills, they had the resources, and Hollywood was in that beautifully confused period when the studios were willing to chuck money at anything that might drag audiences away from TV.

The trap, however, was that these new, big-budget 'B-movies' caught on, and the blockbusters and ripoffs they inspired didn't have the genuine love for the old genres or sheer talent that GL and Spielberg brought, so the world simply ended up with big, dumb movies that were essentially as worthwhile as the cheap drive-in rubbish of the 1940s and 1950s, they just cost a lot more. Independence Day, anyone?

 

Agree with THAT for sure Darth_Nub.

It frustrates me so much how big and bombastic the blockbuster films are now, and that's all good and well BUT the creative "ease" to use CGI and computers to make the films something bigger and louder and dumber is all too easy and detracts from the over-all enjoyment for me.

Sure it looks good and flashy and smooth BUT there's very little real about it. It's one big action sequence leading to the next and they try too hard to project the future to create situations and characters we HAVE to believe in because the CGI dictates we do.

Part of the love for 'ROTLA' was the fact is was set in the 30s and so had things we knew about and could relate to; little things like the vehicles, the locations, the characters; we knew of them and that made it so more enjoyable to relate to. Even 'KOTCS' started to veer off into the big blockbuster territory at parts with the CGI and futuristic elements. It's hard to blend to the two together to make a credible movie I think, especially if you're Indiana Jones.

That's why all the talk of a new Indy film is exciting BUT scary - what steps will Disney take to create a big blockbuster that will be hot marketing fodder for young and old audiences. The good thing about 1981 was the LACK of marketing, bar your basic mild merchandise, that didn't dictate how the film should be made BEFORE it was released. It was a family film, but not afraid to honour tradition of dealing with dark subject matter and adult material to ground it in reality.

Films now are pretty much made to market a specific audience and fan-base before it's even out. It's all $$$ and £££ now.

 

Sean is awesome in the movie but it did feel like he kinda upstaged Harrison at times, when Harrison is the leading man of the saga. I far prefer Indy as a rogue adventurer and explorer.

 

Last Crusade is actually my favorite of the Indiana Jones films. It just had the perfect mix of adventure, action, heart and humor.

 

Ditto.